madness and the woman

[RandyPNW]

I don't really like to interpret biblical prophecy in terms of current events--I think it can be a little silly and actually abusive. However, I can't resist pointing out a couple of prophecies given 2000 years ago and even over 2500 years ago that could be conceivably fulfilled in our own time. I'm talking about Zechariah 12 and Revelation 12. These two prophecies speak of what appears to be Israel far off in the future when Israel's final battle for existence takes place. According to Revelation 12, it begins with a great dragon, Satan, who tries to destroy the child of a great woman. It appears that the woman is Israel, and the child is Jesus because it is said that the child is destined to rule the world.

Anyway, the woman is protected by the two wings of a great eagle. I was watching the news tonight, and recognized that both political parties in the US, Democrat and Republican, are turning their support to Israel! How could that happen?

So the Devil is angry and spews a flood after the woman, which could be an army. And the earth opens its mouth and swallows the river. Could this be the world coming to Israel's aid to defeat terrorist attacks?

In Zechariah 12 we read that Jerusalem will become the center of international assault. But Israel will become like a fire in the midst of a wood pile, and its army become strong like King David, devouring all of the surrounding enemies who attack her.

We live in interesting days. Those who rise against Israel will be driven in a kind of madness, which is clearly what I see in this Islamic phobia and mania. It is blood lust and antisemitic hate.

There are many prophecies about the last times, in which Israel fights a final battle for her survival. Her survival was promised 4000 years ago to a man named Abraham, and God was so pleased with him that he was promised a nation forever. The strange thing is, Christians gave up all hope that their God could keep this promise to the Jewish People because in 70 AD they lost their homeland, and have been wandering Jews over the last 2000 years!

That means these prophecies could *not* have been fulfilled over the last 20 centuries or so! It has become a hallmark of God's fidelity to His own word, His enduring promises, and his endless grace. It has become a picture of God's fortitude and patience, wishing all to have time to come to Him as their God and Lord. It's all in the Bible!

 

[keras]

It's all in the Bible!

Yes, and the Bible makes it clear that those who falsely call themselves Israel, will be virtually destroyed, while His chosen peoples, as plainly stated in 1 Peter 2:9-10, will receive the Blessings Promised to those who keep their faith thru all that must happen, from now until Eternity.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I don't really like to interpret biblical prophecy in terms of current events--I think it can be a little silly and actually abusive. However, I can't resist pointing out a couple of prophecies given 2000 years ago and even over 2500 years ago that could be conceivably fulfilled in our own time. I'm talking about Zechariah 12 and Revelation 12. These two prophecies speak of what appears to be Israel far off in the future when Israel's final battle for existence takes place. According to Revelation 12, it begins with a great dragon, Satan, who tries to destroy the child of a great woman. It appears that the woman is Israel, and the child is Jesus because it is said that the child is destined to rule the world.

Anyway, the woman is protected by the two wings of a great eagle. I was watching the news tonight, and recognized that both political parties, Democrat and Republican, are turning their support to Israel! How could that happen?

So the Devil is angry and spews a flood after the woman, which could be an army. And the earth opens its mouth and swallows the river. Could this be the world coming to Israel's aid to defeat terrorist attacks?

In Zechariah 12 we read that Jerusalem will become the center of international assault. But Israel will become like a fire in the midst of a wood pile, and its army become strong like King David, devouring all of the surrounding enemies who attack her.

We live in interesting days. Those who rise against Israel will be driven in a kind of madness, which is clearly what I see in this Islamic phobia and mania. It is blood lust and antisemitic hate.

There are many prophecies about the last times, in which Israel fights a final battle for her survival. Her survival was promised 4000 years ago to a man named Abraham, and God was so pleased with him that he was promised a nation forever. The strange thing is, Christians gave up all hope that their God could keep this promise to the Jewish People because in 70 AD they lost their homeland, and have been wandering Jews over the last 2000 years!

That means these prophecies could *not* have been fulfilled over the last 20 centuries or so! It has become a mark of God's fidelity to His own word, His enduring promises, and his endless grace. It has become a picture of God's fortitude and patience, wishing all to have time to come to Him as their God and Lord. It's all in the Bible!

God's promise is salvation through Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Be blessed.

 

[RandyPNW]

Yes, and the Bible makes it clear that those who falsely call themselves Israel, will be virtually destroyed, while His chosen peoples, as plainly stated in 1 Peter 2:9-10, will receive the Blessings Promised to those who keep their faith thru all that must happen, from now until Eternity.

I agree with you that not all Israel is the Israel that will be saved. To me, the salvation of "all Israel," spoken of by Paul in Romans 11, has to do with political salvation of the nation. It is, in other words, both spiritual and political. It is spiritual because it requires a conversion of the nation to Christ. And it is political because it is not just an individual salvation, but more, the preservation of an entire society and nation--a political salvation.

You redefine "Israel" to mean something other than the Jewish State. I understand that, but disagree with you on it.

On the other hand, we are agreed that Israel in its present state is not immune to God's judgment. They are not yet a Christian nation, as I anticipate they will be one day. So in terms of current events, Israel is not yet where it needs to be, and many Jews will be cut off from the Israel that is to be.

My hope is that Christians understand that God isn't an "isolationist." That is, He is not just interested in recovering individual souls. Much more than that, He is trying to establish righteous societies, since we were all created to live in the New Jerusalem, which is a society.

So God has always been interested in nations, and not just in individual salvation. He wants the nation to be established on theocratic principles to safeguard justice and righteousness in the society, preserving God's plan for both individuals and nations. I trust you believe there is a place in God's Kingdom for "nations" at present?

 

[keras]

You redefine "Israel" to mean something other than the Jewish State.

Yes I do. Because the word 'Israel', means 'an Overcomer for God', which the Israelis are not.
When the new Jewish state was formed in 1948, David ben Gurion proposed to call it Judah, but it was the Americans who convinced him to call it Israel.
Although the House of Judah was a part of ancient Israel, they separated over 3000 years ago and should not be called Israel. Their flag is the star of Remphan, Acts 7:43, and Jesus tells us who they belong to. Revelation 2:9b Many Prophesies tell of their demise. Isaiah 22:14

I trust you believe there is a place in God's Kingdom for "nations" at present?

We know there will be nations in the Millennium. Zechariah 14:16-19

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don't really like to interpret biblical prophecy in terms of current events--I think it can be a little silly and actually abusive. However, I can't resist pointing out a couple of prophecies given 2000 years ago and even over 2500 years ago that could be conceivably fulfilled in our own time. I'm talking about Zechariah 12 and Revelation 12. These two prophecies speak of what appears to be Israel far off in the future when Israel's final battle for existence takes place.

I disagree. I see no indication of that at all. Zechariah 12:10 is partially quoted in the New Testament and is related directly to the time of Christ's death.

Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

So, the New Testament places the timing of that Old Testament prophecy from Zechariah 12 around the time of Christ's death. Why would you not use the New Testament to aid your understanding of an Old Testament prophecy? I guess the answer is because you interpret Zechariah 12 very literally, but I don't believe it's intended to be interpreted that way. I think instead it should be seen as referencing what Jesus would accomplish with His death and resurrection. Not only did He accomplish the possibility of salvation for those who believe in Him, but through His death and resurrection He also condemned all of God's enemies who rejected Him and His plan for humanity.

According to Revelation 12, it begins with a great dragon, Satan, who tries to destroy the child of a great woman. It appears that the woman is Israel, and the child is Jesus because it is said that the child is destined to rule the world.

The woman can't be national Israel. Revelation 12 indicates that she has one child who would rule the world which obviously references Jesus. What other children does the woman have? This verse tells us:

Revelation 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

So, the rest of the woman's offspring, besides Jesus, are those who follow Jesus. Christians. National Israel has more offspring than just Jesus and Christians, so the woman cannot represent national Israel. Instead, she represents spiritual Israel. Making Revelation 12 about national Israel instead of spiritual Israel is a mistake. Making Zechariah 12 about modern day Israel instead of about Jesus making a way for salvation while bringing condemnation to God's enemies by way of His death and resurrection is also a mistake.

 

[RandyPNW]

I disagree. I see no indication of that at all. Zechariah 12:10 is partially quoted in the New Testament and is related directly to the time of Christ's death.

Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

So, the New Testament places the timing of that Old Testament prophecy from Zechariah 12 around the time of Christ's death.

Well, the obvious answer, for my kind of interpretation, is that Jesus is identified, in the endtimes, as the one who had been pierced. In other words, he was pierced in ancient history, but the recognition that he is the one who had been pierced is a revelation coming to Jews at Jesus' Return.

The woman can't be national Israel. Revelation 12 indicates that she has one child who would rule the world which obviously references Jesus. What other children does the woman have? This verse tells us:

Revelation 12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

So, the rest of the woman's offspring, besides Jesus, are those who follow Jesus. Christians. National Israel has more offspring than just Jesus and Christians, so the woman cannot represent national Israel. Instead, she represents spiritual Israel. Making Revelation 12 about national Israel instead of spiritual Israel is a mistake. Making Zechariah 12 about modern day Israel instead of about Jesus making a way for salvation while bringing condemnation to God's enemies by way of His death and resurrection is also a mistake.

Well, ask yourself if Abraham is our spiritual father? He was promised both the nation of Israel and a conglomeration of many nations who share in his faith. If he is our spiritual father, then perhaps Israel can be our spiritual mother, as well?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Well, the obvious answer, for my kind of interpretation, is that Jesus is identified, in the endtimes, as the one who had been pierced. In other words, he was pierced in ancient history, but the recognition that he is the one who had been pierced is a revelation coming to Jews as Jesus' Return.

But, that is not what the text indicates. Instead, it indicates that the prophecy that said they would look upon the one whom they pierced was fulfilled when He was pierced and they looked upon Him. It seems that you are not accepting the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10 that we are given in John 19:34-37.

Well, ask yourself if Abraham is our spiritual father? He was promised both the nation of Israel and a conglomeration of many nations who share in his faith. If he is our spiritual father, then perhaps Israel can be our spiritual mother, as well?

I don't believe so since that isn't taught in scripture anywhere. Again, the only children of the woman that Revelation 12 references are Jesus and those who follow Jesus. That is not a description of national Israel.

As for who is our spiritual mother, have you never read this:

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

So, using scripture to interpret scripture, our spiritual mother is said to be heavenly Jerusalem. So, the woman of Revelation 12, who is our spiritual mother, should be identified as the heavenly Jerusalem or something similar. I had said she represents spiritual Israel, so that's basically saying the same thing.

 

[RandyPNW]

But, that is not what the text indicates. Instead, it indicates that the prophecy that said they would look upon the one whom they pierced was fulfilled when He was pierced and they looked upon Him. It seems that you are not accepting the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10 that we are given in John 19:34-37.

Yes, we disagree on this because I don't see this prophecy as being fulfilled at the time Jesus was pierced. John 19 merely quotes the necessity of Jesus being pierced to fulfill the prophecy's prerequisite of a "pierced body" in order for it to be fulfilled later by those who recognize that fact. It could not be fulfilled when Jews come back to Jesus because he had to have been one who was "pierced." That was the prerequisite fulfilled at the time of Jesus' cross.

I don't believe so since that isn't taught in scripture anywhere. Again, the only children of the woman that Revelation 12 references are Jesus and those who follow Jesus. That is not a description of national Israel.

What I referred to is God's promise to Abraham that he literally become the "father" not just of the nation Israel but also of many nations who share his faith. Why are you bypassing this? Why are you dismissing this stated fact?

And if indeed Abraham is considered our father of faith, to Jew and to Gentile, then why can't the nation Israel in a sense be our faith mother--both Jew and Gentile? After all, Israel gave birth to Jesus, and as such she became mother to the source of our faith--Jesus. Is that not then the source of our own "motherhood?"

Put another way, if Israel is the "1st born," then that would make us the "2nd born." If so, then we are brothers, and have the same Mother! It may be that Israel is a step mother, but she's still a mother!

As for who is our spiritual mother, have you never read this:

Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Well, Jerusalem is Israel! That makes Israel our Mother, doesn't it?

So, using scripture to interpret scripture, our spiritual mother is said to be heavenly Jerusalem. So, the woman of Revelation 12, who is our spiritual mother, should be identified as the heavenly Jerusalem or something similar. I had said she represents spiritual Israel, so that's basically saying the same thing.

Yes, I wouldn't characterize unbelieving Israel as our mother, regardless. On this we agree--it is *spiritual Israel* who is our Mother! Thanks.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, we disagree on this because I don't see this prophecy as being fulfilled at the time Jesus was pierced. John 19 merely quotes the necessity of Jesus being pierced to fulfill the prophecy's prerequisite of a "pierced body" in order for it to be fulfilled later by those who recognize that fact. It could not be fulfilled when Jews come back to Jesus because he had to have been one who was "pierced." That was the prerequisite fulfilled at the time of Jesus' cross.

There is no indication of anything you're saying here in John 19:34-37 or anywhere else in the New Testament.

What I referred to is God's promise to Abraham that he literally become the "father" not just of the nation Israel but also of many nations who share his faith. Why are you bypassing this? Why are you dismissing this stated fact?

Why do you assume I'm dismissing something purposely? It's not possible that I may have missed something you were trying to say, which is the case here? I don't appreciate you judging me like that. I didn't catch that you were making that point. And, as you already know, I disagree with your concept of Christian nations and such, so I'm not going to go into that in detail again here.

And if indeed Abraham is considered our father of faith, to Jew and to Gentile, then why can't the nation Israel in a sense be our faith mother--both Jew and Gentile? After all, Israel gave birth to Jesus, and as such she became mother to the source of our faith--Jesus. Is that not then the source of our own "motherhood?"

Put another way, if Israel is the "1st born," then that would make us the "2nd born." If so, then we are brothers, and have the same Mother! It may be that Israel is a step mother, but she's still a mother!

You apparently missed my point entirely. Again, Revelation 12 only makes mention of Jesus and those who follow Jesus as being the children of the woman. National Israel also has unbelieving Israelites as its children and does not have Gentiles as its children, so it can't be the woman of Revelation 12.

Well, Jerusalem is Israel! That makes Israel our Mother, doesn't it?

I hope you're just kidding here. You do understand that "the Jerusalem which is above" is a reference to heavenly Jerusalem and not earthly Jerusalem, right?

Yes, I wouldn't characterize unbelieving Israel as our mother, regardless. On this we agree--it is *spiritual Israel* who is our Mother! Thanks.

You are an interesting one. You spend the whole post disagreeing with everything I said and then suddenly you agree with the main point I was making. Huh. If Spiritual Israel is our mother and we are those who follow Jesus, then why would you not see that the woman of Revelation 12 is spiritual Israel since the only children of the woman referenced in Revelation 12 are Jesus Himself and those who follow Him (Rev 12:17)?

 

[RandyPNW]

There is no indication of anything you're saying here in John 19:34-37 or anywhere else in the New Testament.

I disagree.
John 19.36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

What things happened? Jesus was crucified. What things were fulfilled? The need was met for Jesus to be pierced so that the prophecy can continue on and be fulfilled at the restoration of Israel, when Jesus comes back. If Jews are to see Jesus as the one who was pierced at Jesus' return, then the prophecy had to be fulfilled which indicated to those Jews that he had been "pierced."

This is such a common interpretation--I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that? Nothing I'm saying is unusual. It is a very well-accepted interpretation.

Why do you assume I'm dismissing something purposely? It's not possible that I may have missed something you were trying to say, which is the case here? I don't appreciate you judging me like that. I didn't catch that you were making that point. And, as you already know, I disagree with your concept of Christian nations and such, so I'm not going to go into that in detail again here.

It's possible you missed something. It's normal for me to think you deliberately ignored my point since that was the very point you overlooked in your response. I'm not being judgmental--it's just a surmise. Here is your opportunity to address the point, but will you? But no, you completely ignore my suggestion that Abraham is our spiritual father.

So I'm again surmising, but it seems you're ignoring the point? If Abraham is our spiritual father, why can't Spiritual Israel be our spiritual mother?

You apparently missed my point entirely. Again, Revelation 12 only makes mention of Jesus and those who follow Jesus as being the children of the woman. National Israel also has unbelieving Israelites as its children and does not have Gentiles as its children, so it can't be the woman of Revelation 12.

Your point doesn't resonate with me because it seems irrelevant to the idea that Spiritual Israel can be our Spiritual Mother. I'm not sure that's what Rev 12 means, but it appears to be a valid theory from what I'm arguing.

Does it matter if OT Israel had both believing and unbelieving Israelites? No, it is only *Spiritual Israel* that is our Mother--not the part of Israel that improperly represents Spiritual Israel. They are rejects. Spiritual Israel is our Mother, and not those who are to be rejected as belonging to her.

You argue that Israel does not have Gentile children, but you're begging the question: If Abraham was father of both Hebrew and Gentile children, why can't Israel be mother of both Hebrew and Gentile children of faith? Again, you have not addressed the fatherhood of Abraham issue. Don't you understand my point on this?

I hope you're just kidding here. You do understand that "the Jerusalem which is above" is a reference to heavenly Jerusalem and not earthly Jerusalem, right?

I'm not kidding about anything. Jerusalem is Israel, period, whether heavenly or earthly. Referring to Jerusalem as "Heavenly Jerusalem" does not diminish who she is, and does not reduce her to an ambiguous symbol of something else.

God always meant for Israel to be spiritual. Her failure in history does not make her any less a nation called to be spiritual and heavenly.

You are an interesting one. You spend the whole post disagreeing with everything I said and then suddenly you agree with the main point I was making. Huh. If Spiritual Israel is our mother and we are those who follow Jesus, then why would you not see that the woman of Revelation 12 is spiritual Israel since the only children of the woman referenced in Revelation 12 are Jesus Himself and those who follow Him (Rev 12:17)?

We agree that Israel and Jerusalem were always called to be "Spiritual Israel" or "Heavenly Israel." As such, who she was called to be ideally is what may be our "Mother Israel." I'm not saying I'm correct, but we're at least in agreement on the *spiritual aspect* of our Mother. True Israel has always been spiritual, and not carnal. Hopefully that is a strong point of agreement?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I disagree.
John 19.36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

What things happened? Jesus was crucified. What things were fulfilled? The need was met for Jesus to be pierced so that the prophecy can continue on and be fulfilled at the restoration of Israel, when Jesus comes back.

If that was the case then why is that not indicated anywhere in the New Testament? All we have in the New Testament is a reference to Zechariah 12:10 as being fulfilled long ago around the time of Christ's death.

If Jews are to see Jesus as the one who was pierced at Jesus' return, then the prophecy had to be fulfilled which indicated to those Jews that he had been "pierced."

This is such a common interpretation--I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that? Nothing I'm saying is unusual. It is a very well-accepted interpretation.

It's not accepted by me and many others, so that means nothing to me. When did I say that I wasn't aware of that interpretation? Nowhere. An interpretation being "well-accepted" but also false doesn't mean anything to me. I don't believe that there is a direct relation between Revelation 1:7 and Zechariah 12:10, which I assume is what you are getting at here. The Zechariah 12:10 verse has to do with people mourning His death while Revelation 1:7 has to do with people wailing in fear over seeing Him because of the wrath about to come down on them (see Revelation 6:12-17).

It's possible you missed something. It's normal for me to think you deliberately ignored my point since that was the very point you overlooked in your response. I'm not being judgmental--it's just a surmise.

Let me be clear. I do not EVER purposely ignore anyone's points. EVER. I may not respond to all of your points since there is no law that says I have to do that, but I don't ignore ANYTHING. EVER. Why would I do that? There's no reason to do that.

Here is your opportunity to address the point, but will you? But no, you completely ignore my suggestion that Abraham is our spiritual father.

I don't ignore anything. What is wrong with you? I can respond to whatever I want or not respond to whatever I don't want to respond to, but I'm not ignoring anything. Did I say anything to suggest I believe that Abraham is not our spiritual father? Absolutely not. So, why do I need to respond to that. Why would you think I don't believe that? Scripture makes that clear repeatedly and I never said otherwise.

So I'm again surmising, but it seems you're ignoring the point? If Abraham is our spiritual father, why can't Spiritual Israel be our spiritual mother?

It is! What in the world is wrong with you, Randy? Are you not reading what I actually say? That is exactly my point that heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26) or spiritual Israel is the woman of Revelation 12 and is our spiritual mother. How could you miss that?

Your point doesn't resonate with me because it seems irrelevant to the idea that Spiritual Israel can be our Spiritual Mother. I'm not sure that's what Rev 12 means, but it appears to be a valid theory from what I'm arguing.

Am I in the Twilight Zone here? How are you missing that the point I'm making is that Spiritual Israel is the woman of Revelation 12? I very specifically said as such! My argument is against the idea that the woman is the nation of Israel, which I thought is what you indicated that you believe. No?

Does it matter if OT Israel had both believing and unbelieving Israelites? No, it is only *Spiritual Israel* that is our Mother--not the part of Israel that improperly represents Spiritual Israel. They are rejects. Spiritual Israel is our Mother, and not those who are to be rejected as belonging to her.

I have no idea what you are saying here. What is your understanding of "Spiritual Israel"?

You argue that Israel does not have Gentile children, but you're begging the question: If Abraham was father of both Hebrew and Gentile children, why can't Israel be mother of both Hebrew and Gentile children of faith?

Which Israel are you talking about? The nation of Israel of course only has physical descendants who are physical Israelites. Only Spiritual Israel has both Jew and Gentile descendants with Abraham as their spiritual father because they have faith like Abraham.

Again, you have not addressed the fatherhood of Abraham issue. Don't you understand my point on this?

He is our spiritual father in terms of the fact that we are saved by way of having faith like he did rather than by works of the law. That's an elementary teaching.

I'm not kidding about anything. Jerusalem is Israel, period, whether heavenly or earthly.

What are you talking about? Do you not differentiate between earthly and heavenly Jerusalem or between national and spiritual Israel? You're not making any sense.

Referring to Jerusalem as "Heavenly Jerusalem" does not diminish who she is, and does not reduce her to an ambiguous symbol of something else.

What are you talking about? Again, are you not differentiating between earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem referenced in verses like Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22?

God always meant for Israel to be spiritual. Her failure in history does not make her any less a nation called to be spiritual and heavenly.

An earthly nation that is mostly comprised of people who reject Christ is not worthy of being called Spiritual Israel. That is nonsense.

We agree that Israel and Jerusalem were always called to be "Spiritual Israel" or "Heavenly Israel." As such, who she was called to be ideally is what may be our "Mother Israel." I'm not saying I'm correct, but we're at least in agreement on the *spiritual aspect* of our Mother. True Israel has always been spiritual, and not carnal. Hopefully that is a strong point of agreement?

I don't know if I agree because I can't make sense of most of what you're saying. I can't tell if you are differentiating between earthly Israel and spiritual Israel or not.

 

[RandyPNW]

If that was the case then why is that not indicated anywhere in the New Testament? All we have in the New Testament is a reference to Zechariah 12:10 as being fulfilled long ago around the time of Christ's death.

The following is a NT verse, and it has a future--not a past--application. Those who pierced Jesus were Israel. Israel will, in the future, recognize Jesus as Messiah at his Coming, and know that they, as a people, had "pierced him." The prophecy in Zech 12-13 suggests that, in my opinion.

Rev 1.7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”

It's not accepted by me and many others, so that means nothing to me. When did I say that I wasn't aware of that interpretation? Nowhere. An interpretation being "well-accepted" but also false doesn't mean anything to me.

Well then, if you understand my argument, I'm happy with that. I'm not saying you have to accept my view. I just wanted you to *understand* my view, whether you think it is reasonable or not. And I want you to know that *I think* my view is reasonable.

I don't believe that there is a direct relation between Revelation 1:7 and Zechariah 12:10, which I assume is what you are getting at here. The Zechariah 12:10 verse has to do with people mourning His death while Revelation 1:7 has to do with people wailing in fear over seeing Him because of the wrath about to come down on them (see Revelation 6:12-17).

Yes, that's what I was assuming, just as I've argued it a number of times before. You don't have to agree or accept it--your thoughts are your own.

Let me be clear. I do not EVER purposely ignore anyone's points. EVER. I may not respond to all of your points since there is no law that says I have to do that, but I don't ignore ANYTHING. EVER. Why would I do that? There's no reason to do that.

Your opinion about yourself is your own. Cheerlead all you want, but what matters is what you do. If I make a major point in our disagreement, and in your very next statement you ignore that point, I don't have to judge your intentions--you've simply chosen to skip over my point. I am perfectly fine with surmising that you *may have* intentionally avoided the argument, and I don't think you're so "holy" that you could never do such a thing. But my interest here is *not* in judging you. On the other hand, I find the whole "judgmental" thing a distraction.

I don't ignore anything. What is wrong with you? I can respond to whatever I want or not respond to whatever I don't want to respond to, but I'm not ignoring anything. Did I say anything to suggest I believe that Abraham is not our spiritual father? Absolutely not. So, why do I need to respond to that. Why would you think I don't believe that? Scripture makes that clear repeatedly and I never said otherwise.

I'm not making you do anything--just suggesting that if you wish to argue a matter you deal with the point being made. Otherwise, you're just arguing to yourself. And if you wish to do that, then I have a responsibility to myself to ignore you too.

Stating that Abraham is father of *both* Jew and Gentile was a major point and central to my argument because it suggests that if a father can be a "spiritual father," more than just a "natural father," then a mother can be the same. In our case, this means that Israel, if she is a spiritual mother, can be mother of both Jew and Gentile, which is the point you were arguing against. You indicated that if Israel is a mother at all, she can only be mother of the Jewish People, or that's how I read what you wrote. You said:

"National Israel also has unbelieving Israelites as its children and does not have Gentiles as its children, so it can't be the woman of Revelation 12."

It is! What in the world is wrong with you, Randy? Are you not reading what I actually say? That is exactly my point that heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26) or spiritual Israel is the woman of Revelation 12 and is our spiritual mother. How could you miss that?

No, I agreed with you on that explicitly. So why don't you see that? I said:

We agree that Israel and Jerusalem were always called to be "Spiritual Israel" or "Heavenly Israel." As such, who she was called to be ideally is what may be our "Mother Israel." I'm not saying I'm correct, but we're at least in agreement on the *spiritual aspect* of our Mother. True Israel has always been spiritual, and not carnal. Hopefully that is a strong point of agreement?

Am I in the Twilight Zone here? How are you missing that the point I'm making is that Spiritual Israel is the woman of Revelation 12? I very specifically said as such! My argument is against the idea that the woman is the nation of Israel, which I thought is what you indicated that you believe. No?\

I'm afraid it's you who don't see that I've already agreed with you that "Spiritual Israel is our mother." I just quoted it for you from a previous post. So who is not seeing? Who is in the Twilight Zone?

You just aren't seeing where the difference is, I suppose? To me, seeing Israel as a Spiritual Mother is not redefining "Israel" to extend a "nation" to being an "International Entity." We agree that Gentiles were added to the Jews to comprise the International Church. But we do not agree that this "International Church" is expressed as "Israel" in the Bible!

I have no idea what you are saying here. What is your understanding of "Spiritual Israel"?

Please see above. Spiritual Israel consists currently of Jews who follow Jesus. But when the nation is restored, politically, the entire nation will become "Spiritual Israel," because every citizen will sign onto a Christian Constitution.

Not every individual will remain faithful to this pledge, but the entire nation must become essentially a "Christian nation" in order to fulfill prophecy, I believe. That's how I define "Spiritual Israel"--as natural Israel when it turns to become a "spiritual Israel" by conversion to Christ.

Which Israel are you talking about? The nation of Israel of course only has physical descendants who are physical Israelites. Only Spiritual Israel has both Jew and Gentile descendants with Abraham as their spiritual father because they have faith like Abraham.

This is precisely where we disagree. To extend the nation Israel to include Gentile nations changes the definition of Israel, the nation! A nation must remain a singular nation or lose its political identity. You, on the other hand, choose to change the definition of national Israel to mean something else, spiritualizing "Israel" to mean a "many-nation entity," united spiritually through Christ.

He is our spiritual father in terms of the fact that we are saved by way of having faith like he did rather than by works of the law. That's an elementary teaching.

Yes, we've both graduated from elementary school. We both agree then that Abraham was a spiritual father, and that Israel could be a spiritual mother. But the definition of Israel as a singular nation did not change when she became a step-mother over Gentile nationals.

Israel remains a single nation, even as she extends her motherhood to include Gentiles. This is a spiritual progeny that does not require a change in Israel's definition as a nation. She can remain a single nation and still give birth, spiritually, to other nations. The "mother" does *not* include the children! She mothers the other children, including her own people and other people. But the other people are *not* her own people.

What are you talking about? Do you not differentiate between earthly and heavenly Jerusalem or between national and spiritual Israel? You're not making any sense.


What are you talking about? Again, are you not differentiating between earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem referenced in verses like Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22?

Of course I differentiate between heavenly and earthly Jerusalem in terms of destiny and in terms of where they are today, practically. But in terms of where they are ideally called to be sees no difference at all.

Earthly Israel is called to be heavenly Israel. It has always been that way. The only reason Paul differentiated them was to show that one definition of "earthly Israel" involves those who will be rejected from Israel. Yet another reasonable definition of "earthly Israel" is the one God called to be 'heavenly Israel" (or Jerusalem).

An earthly nation that is mostly comprised of people who reject Christ is not worthy of being called Spiritual Israel. That is nonsense.

Yes, we have to define our terms, since terms mean different things in different contexts. When Paul speaks of "earthly Israel" in the sense of those who reject Christ, then he is not talking about the "earthly Israel" who was determined to be "spiritual Israel."

The real problem here is in determining how the words are being used, whether as Israel's destiny or as those who will be rejected from that destiny. "Earthly Israel," as I use the term, refers to physical, literal Israel as a nation on earth. They were called to be a "spiritual nation."

But another use of the term "earthly Israel" could better be expressed as "earthy Israel," ie those in Israel choosing to be carnal, and not spiritual. They will be rejected from God's call upon the nation. Israel's destiny as an "earthy Israel" has not been sealed yet. The Scriptures indicate the earthy nation will eventually repent, while those who choose to remain "earthy" will be cut off forever.

I don't know if I agree because I can't make sense of most of what you're saying. I can't tell if you are differentiating between earthly Israel and spiritual Israel or not.

I understand the confusion, but have spent many years sorting through the issues. I'm not in the least ignorant about the things we're discussing. I hope I've helped you understand our differences. If not, oh well...

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The following is a NT verse, and it has a future--not a past--application. Those who pierced Jesus were Israel. Israel will, in the future, recognize Jesus as Messiah at his Coming, and know that they, as a people, had "pierced him." The prophecy in Zech 12-13 suggests that, in my opinion.

Rev 1.7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”

I already addressed this when I indicated that I don't believe Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 1:7 have the same context. The first is about people mourning His death and the second is about people wailing over seeing Him because they will know it means His wrath is about to come down on them, as we see described in Revelation 6:12-17.

I'm not making you do anything--just suggesting that if you wish to argue a matter you deal with the point being made. Otherwise, you're just arguing to yourself. And if you wish to do that, then I have a responsibility to myself to ignore you too.

For crying out loud, I address people's points on here as much as anyone does. A majority of my points that I make when talking to others get ignored. I address a vast majority of your points and you're still not satisfied. Good grief.

Stating that Abraham is father of *both* Jew and Gentile was a major point and central to my argument because it suggests that if a father can be a "spiritual father," more than just a "natural father," then a mother can be the same. In our case, this means that Israel, if she is a spiritual mother, can be mother of both Jew and Gentile, which is the point you were arguing against.

My argument is that national Israel is not a spiritual mother. It is an earthly entity. Paul indicated that our mother in a spiritual sense is the Jerusalem which is above. The heavenly Jerusalem. Not earthly Jerusalem. So, if the term Israel can be used similarly, why would we see earthly Israel as being our mother rather than heavenly or spiritual Israel as a separate entity from earthly, national Israel? That is my point. You think I ignored your point, which is false. I simply missed it. I see it better now. But, I don't think you're seeing my point, either. But, I won't accuse you of ignoring it. Hopefully, I made it more clear here.

You indicated that if Israel is a mother at all, she can only be mother of the Jewish People, or that's how I read what you wrote.

National Israel is an earthly entity, not spiritual. So, it has only earthly children, which are physical Israelites. Again, think about Galatians 4:26. Is that referring to earthly Jerusalem as our mother? No, it refers to the Jerusalem which is above as our mother. Why would you not think of Israel similarly in terms of whether or not the woman represents earthly Israel or a separate entity that some of us call Spiritual Israel?

You said:

"National Israel also has unbelieving Israelites as its children and does not have Gentiles as its children, so it can't be the woman of Revelation 12."

No, I agreed with you on that explicitly. So why don't you see that? I said:

We agree that Israel and Jerusalem were always called to be "Spiritual Israel" or "Heavenly Israel." As such, who she was called to be ideally is what may be our "Mother Israel." I'm not saying I'm correct, but we're at least in agreement on the *spiritual aspect* of our Mother. True Israel has always been spiritual, and not carnal. Hopefully that is a strong point of agreement?

I'm afraid it's you who don't see that I've already agreed with you that "Spiritual Israel is our mother." I just quoted it for you from a previous post. So who is not seeing? Who is in the Twilight Zone?

You may think you're being clear, but you're not to me. When you refer to "Spiritual Israel", what do you mean exactly? Are you referring to the earthly nation of Israel in a spiritual sense or to a separate entity called "Spiritual Israel" or "True Israel"?

You just aren't seeing where the difference is, I suppose? To me, seeing Israel as a Spiritual Mother is not redefining "Israel" to extend a "nation" to being an "International Entity." We agree that Gentiles were added to the Jews to comprise the International Church. But we do not agree that this "International Church" is expressed as "Israel" in the Bible!

Obviously. Yet, that concept is indicated in Romans 9:6-8. Insisting that there is only one Israel makes complete nonsense out of that passage.

Please see above. Spiritual Israel consists currently of Jews who follow Jesus.

And only Jews? Where is this concept taught in scripture? What you're not realizing is that you have a belief in two bodies of Christ, but scripture says there is only ONE body of Christ that includes both Jew and Gentile Christians. It never speaks of a separate body of only Jewish believers apart from the church.

But when the nation is restored, politically, the entire nation will become "Spiritual Israel," because every citizen will sign onto a Christian Constitution.

Show me where scripture teaches this.

Not every individual will remain faithful to this pledge, but the entire nation must become essentially a "Christian nation" in order to fulfill prophecy, I believe.

Which prophecy exactly?

That's how I define "Spiritual Israel"--as natural Israel when it turns to become a "spiritual Israel" by conversion to Christ.

What scripture is this based on? Why would Gentile believers not be included in Spiritual Israel? Why would SPIRITUAL Israel have any requirements to be part of it besides things that are spiritual? But, you make one's physical, national descendancy a requirement for being part of Spiritual Israel. That contradicts what Paul wrote in Romans 9:6-8.

This is precisely where we disagree. To extend the nation Israel to include Gentile nations changes the definition of Israel, the nation!

No, it does not. This shows your lack of understanding of what I believe. You are not even attempting to see things as I do. You don't even allow for the possibility of there being more than one Israel. But, for the sake of argument, can you do that in order to understand my view? It won't kill you. I do NOT "extend the nation Israel to include Gentile nations". I see that nation Israel as a completely SEPARATE entity to Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel is simply a term to describe the body of God's people which we know includes both Jew and Gentile believers. There's no replacing or extending, there is the joining together of Jew and Gentile believers as one body. My view could be called unity theology, but not replacement theology.

A nation must remain a singular nation or lose its political identity

I don't try to turn the nation of Israel into something else. That is the straw man argument you're trying to make, but you're misrepresenting my view by doing that. Let me tell you what I believe instead of you telling me what I believe. I know what I believe better than you do just as you know what you believe better than I do. I don't try to tell you what you believe. Can you extend the same courtesy to me?

. You, on the other hand, choose to change the definition of national Israel to mean something else, spiritualizing "Israel" to mean a "many-nation entity," united spiritually through Christ.

Wrong! I don't change the definition of national Israel at all. You think that because you can't accept the possibility of there being more than one Israel. But from my perspective, there are two Israels and I don't have the one (Spiritual Israel) are replacing or redefining the other. So, you are just blatantly misrepresenting my view at this point. I've already explained it many times and you just don't want to see it. You don't have to agree with it, but can you at least make some kind of effort to understand it so that you stop misrepresenting it?

Yes, we've both graduated from elementary school. We both agree then that Abraham was a spiritual father, and that Israel could be a spiritual mother. But the definition of Israel as a singular nation did not change when she became a step-mother over Gentile nationals.

Israel remains a single nation, even as she extends her motherhood to include Gentiles. This is a spiritual progeny that does not require a change in Israel's definition as a nation. She can remain a single nation and still give birth, spiritually, to other nations. The "mother" does *not* include the children! She mothers the other children, including her own people and other people. But the other people are *not* her own people.

When did I ever say that earthly, national Israel is not a single nation? Never! You are wasting a lot of time arguing with a straw man.

Of course I differentiate between heavenly and earthly Jerusalem in terms of destiny and in terms of where they are today, practically. But in terms of where they are ideally called to be sees no difference at all.

You make no sense at all sometimes. This is one of those times. I have no idea what you're saying here.

Earthly Israel is called to be heavenly Israel. It has always been that way.

They are not called to be heavenly Israel, they are called to be part of heavenly Israel along with the Gentiles. You're not seeing the two different Israels like Paul described in Romans 9:6-8.

The only reason Paul differentiated them was to show that one definition of "earthly Israel" involves those who will be rejected from Israel. Yet another reasonable definition of "earthly Israel" is the one God called to be 'heavenly Israel" (or Jerusalem).

Why do you try to create two separate bodies of God's people when Jesus already long ago brought Jew and Gentile believers together as one body? You have a number of beliefs that are no different than dispensationalists and they are wrong about everything.

Yes, we have to define our terms, since terms mean different things in different contexts. When Paul speaks of "earthly Israel" in the sense of those who reject Christ, then he is not talking about the "earthly Israel" who was determined to be "spiritual Israel."

The real problem here is in determining how the words are being used, whether as Israel's destiny or as those who will be rejected from that destiny. "Earthly Israel," as I use the term, refers to physical, literal Israel as a nation on earth. They were called to be a "spiritual nation."

But another use of the term "earthly Israel" could better be expressed as "earthy Israel," ie those in Israel choosing to be carnal, and not spiritual. They will be rejected from God's call upon the nation. Israel's destiny as an "earthy Israel" has not been sealed yet. The Scriptures indicate the earthy nation will eventually repent, while those who choose to remain "earthy" will be cut off forever.

I understand the confusion, but have spent many years sorting through the issues. I'm not in the least ignorant about the things we're discussing. I hope I've helped you understand our differences. If not, oh well...

I have to disagree. I believe you are showing a lot of ignorance about these things which is why you continue to misrepresent my view repeatedly.

 

[Timtofly]

National Israel has more offspring than just Jesus and Christians, so the woman cannot represent national Israel. Instead, she represents spiritual Israel. Making Revelation 12 about national Israel instead of spiritual Israel is a mistake. Making Zechariah 12 about modern day Israel instead of about Jesus making a way for salvation while bringing condemnation to God's enemies by way of His death and resurrection is also a mistake.

Making the woman only spiritual means that Jesus was not physically born, but just spiritually appeared as a man at some point. What is a spiritual child?

No one is replacing what happened in the first century with current events.

Denying the physical aspect of creation is your mistake. It is as if you have replaced the physical with the spiritual. They are not opposites of each other. They go hand in hand as a whole reality instead of a dead reality. The women is both physical and spiritual Israel, not one or the other.

Zechariah 12-14 still has a future fulfillment even though the physical part was accomplished in the first century as well as partial spiritual realization.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Making the woman only spiritual means that Jesus was not physically born, but just spiritually appeared as a man at some point. What is a spiritual child?

Is the church (body of Christ) a physical or spiritual entity? Spiritual, right? And we are members of it, right? So, it doesn't have to be a physical entity for us to be part of it. Similarly, the woman does not have to be a physical entity in order for us to be spiritual children of the woman. So, your argument here doesn't hold water.

Denying the physical aspect of creation is your mistake.

I don't deny that. Any other false accusations you'd like to make? You're good at it.

It is as if you have replaced the physical with the spiritual.

Nope. Any other false accusations you'd like to make? It seems that is all you are capable of doing.

They are not opposites of each other. They go hand in hand as a whole reality instead of a dead reality.

And I said otherwise when? We are both physical and spiritual creatures. I never said otherwise. We are physical beings who are spiritually part of Christ's church.

The women is both physical and spiritual Israel, not one or the other.

How are you coming to that conclusion? What is your understanding of physical Israel? What is your understanding of spiritual Israel?

Zechariah 12-14 still has a future fulfillment even though the physical part was accomplished in the first century as well as partial spiritual realization.

Ah, the ol' partial fulfillment trick. That's how people get around the fact that verses like Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 13:7 are quoted in the New Testament in relation to a first coming of Christ fulfillment rather than a second coming fulfillment.

 

[Timtofly]

And I said otherwise when? We are both physical and spiritual creatures. I never said otherwise. We are physical beings who are spiritually part of Christ's church.

Then so was Israel whenever Israel is a reality. Currently Israel is not a reality. There would be natural branches if Israel were a reality. Are you a natural branch?

 

[Timtofly]

Ah, the ol' partial fulfillment trick. That's how people get around the fact that verses like Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 13:7 are quoted in the New Testament in relation to a first coming of Christ fulfillment rather than a second coming fulfillment.

The verse does not say they will see Jesus get pierced, does it?

"When they look on Me, whom they peirced."

You claim this prophecy was completed. What was the percentage of Jerusalem that day who were happy that Jesus was dead? What percentage mourned the event?

It was not that He was pierced any more than they were sorrowful they had pierced Him. How many pierced Jesus that day? How literal does this need to be?

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

What does the word "wound" mean to you? Did Thomas ask this question? Did Abraham see the wounds? How do you think Abraham saw that day and the wounds? Abraham was glad about seeing those wounds. Abraham lived way before Zechariah did.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

You really think no one will notice those wounds at the Second Coming?

Pretty sure it will be Israel at the Second Coming that will mourn. Obviously you don't agree.

 

[RandyPNW]

I already addressed this when I indicated that I don't believe Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 1:7 have the same context. The first is about people mourning His death and the second is about people wailing over seeing Him because they will know it means His wrath is about to come down on them, as we see described in Revelation 6:12-17.

Right, we disagree on this. That's okay. Our different opinions are noted. (I'm not going to respond to your "emotional outbursts.")

My argument is that national Israel is not a spiritual mother. It is an earthly entity.

My problem with that is, Israel is, by definition, an "earthly entity." When we speak of "Spiritual Israel," we are talking about "earthly Israel" acting in a spiritual manner, as I see it.

Paul indicated that our mother in a spiritual sense is the Jerusalem which is above. The heavenly Jerusalem. Not earthly Jerusalem.

My problem with that is, I don't see "heavenly Jerusalem" as necessarily separated from "earthly Jerusalem," unless we are speaking of "earthy Jerusalem." We can create a comparison between heavenly Jerusalem and earthly Jerusalem in terms of spirituality or the lack thereof. "Earthy Jerusalem" is not spiritual.

But when we speak of "heavenly Jerusalem," there is not a necessary distinction between heavenly and earthly locations. To be "heavenly" is to be connected to Christ who is in heaven. But we can be connected to Christ right now, while we are on the earth. And so, we can be a "heavenly people" at the same time we are an "earthly people."

Phil 3.20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ

So, if the term Israel can be used similarly, why would we see earthly Israel as being our mother rather than heavenly or spiritual Israel as a separate entity from earthly, national Israel?

The simple answer is, we *don't* see national Israel as our mother unless we are talking about national Israel as identical with Spiritual Israel. They are aligned in terms of faith, but distinguished in terms of separating out those who are rejects. Earthy Israelites are not "true Israelites." They are rejected by God, and they lose their place in the citizenship of Israel. Heavenly Israel is the only true Israel, and it has always been this way from the beginning.

National Israel is an earthly entity, not spiritual. So, it has only earthly children, which are physical Israelites.

So you can see here where we diverge? You see Israel in terms of its earthy distinction from heavenly Israel. I accept that this distinction is true, and yet in the context we are talking about true earthly Israel is, in fact, heavenly Israel. It is a matter of whether we're distinguishing true Israel from disqualified Israel or not. If we look at Israel strictly as "true Israel," then from my point of view, it is heavenly Israel or Spiritual Israel. As such, it is our "mother," having given birth to Christ our Lord and Savior.

Again, think about Galatians 4:26. Is that referring to earthly Jerusalem as our mother? No, it refers to the Jerusalem which is above as our mother. Why would you not think of Israel similarly in terms of whether or not the woman represents earthly Israel or a separate entity that some of us call Spiritual Israel?

I do think in terms of who the Jerusalem above is as our mother, as opposed to "earthy Israel," who represents, in context, those in Israel who are disqualified from membership in this true nation. True Israel is Heavenly Israel, but is still on earth--it is their faith that is directed to Christ in heaven. They remain on the earth, even though they are designated as a "heavenly people."

You may think you're being clear, but you're not to me. When you refer to "Spiritual Israel", what do you mean exactly? Are you referring to the earthly nation of Israel in a spiritual sense or to a separate entity called "Spiritual Israel" or "True Israel"?

True Israel, or Spiritual Israel, is the nation Israel consisting exclusively of those who have faith and represent the true people of God. Even though they are designated a "heavenly people," they are really still on the earth, at times being represented by an entire nation dedicated to faith, and at other times of apostasy, consisting only of a very small remnant of faith.

Regardless of how diminished the numbers of believers are in the nation, the nation is destined to become an entire nation of believers once again, when Christ comes back. True Israel will cast off all earthly Jews who disqualify themselves from that entity by their unbelief and wickedness. Only Spiritual Israel, or True Israel, is our mother. Abraham is our father, and True Israel is our mother--at least, that's how I see it right now. I can't be sure.

Obviously. Yet, that concept is indicated in Romans 9:6-8. Insisting that there is only one Israel makes complete nonsense out of that passage.

Israel can be distinguished as two, as believing and unbelieving Israel. Or it can be viewed as one, as the only True Israel.

And only Jews? Where is this concept taught in scripture? What you're not realizing is that you have a belief in two bodies of Christ, but scripture says there is only ONE body of Christ that includes both Jew and Gentile Christians. It never speaks of a separate body of only Jewish believers apart from the church.

No, I agree with you that there is only one Body of Christ. Our unity consists of the faith we all have in a single Christ and in a single God. That makes us one in Christ.

The distinctions within Christianity, as we presently see it on earth, consist of a plurality of nations, separate political units which God has designed to exist like different families exist in separate houses. There is nothing inherently unchristian about a diversity of tribes and nations.

Show me where scripture teaches this.

There are many Scriptures in which Israel is portrayed as "finally saved from their oppressors." The specific passages are abundantly available on the internet. You do the research, unless there are one or two of these passages that you think is relevant to our disagreement?

Which prophecy exactly?

Again, the final salvation of national Israel is abundantly available in the Prophets. The idea that nations of God can be restored without every individual becoming a saint is the entire history of OT Israel. For example, when Israel was restored after the Babylonian Captivity, the nation was rebuilt on faith. And yet many continued to show their sinful tendencies.

What scripture is this based on? Why would Gentile believers not be included in Spiritual Israel?

If Spiritual Israel is True Natural Israel, then Gentiles, by definition, *cannot* be included in Natural Israel! But by adoption True Israel can indeed be our spiritual mother, and Christ, her son, would be our spiritual brother (as well as Lord).

Why would SPIRITUAL Israel have any requirements to be part of it besides things that are spiritual? But, you make one's physical, national descendancy a requirement for being part of Spiritual Israel.

The definition of "Israel" precludes Israel including Gentile believers. We would be their children, and not their citizens.

No, it does not. This shows your lack of understanding of what I believe. You are not even attempting to see things as I do. You don't even allow for the possibility of there being more than one Israel.

Brother, I'm not presenting *your* point of view here--I'm presenting my own view and arguments! And I'm certainly not saying that you believe what I do!

Of course I've looked at how you're defining Israel, as a "Heavenly Jerusalem" and an "Earthly Jerusalem." I'm giving you counter arguments to that point of view, without the hostility that you seem to have. Can you discuss things without anger?

But, for the sake of argument, can you do that in order to understand my view? It won't kill you. I do NOT "extend the nation Israel to include Gentile nations".

You don't? You don't extend the definition of "Spiritual Israel" to include Gentile nations? You better explain this before we continue!

I see that nation Israel as a completely SEPARATE entity to Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel is simply a term to describe the body of God's people which we know includes both Jew and Gentile believers.

So I'm right that you include Gentile believers with Spiritual Israel! The difference between us is that you think the definition of "Spiritual Israel" necessarily excludes "Earthly Israel."

There's no replacing or extending, there is the joining together of Jew and Gentile believers as one body. My view could be called unity theology, but not replacement theology.

You are using a different definition of "replacement" in our argument. You are using your own definition of "replacement" to discount the use of "replacement" as it is used by those who believe as I do.

As I use the term, "replacement" has to do with dismissing Earthly Israel for Spiritual Israel. I do see this as a kind of "replacement" from my point of view. Since you don't hold to my point of view, you don't see anything that is "replaced." If you don't think "Earthly Israel" was ever legitimately "Spiritual Israel," then obviously it does not need to be replaced. It simply never was a valid entity that needed replacing.

I don't try to turn the nation of Israel into something else. That is the straw man argument you're trying to make, but you're misrepresenting my view by doing that. Let me tell you what I believe instead of you telling me what I believe. I know what I believe better than you do just as you know what you believe better than I do. I don't try to tell you what you believe. Can you extend the same courtesy to me?

You may know what *you* believe more than I do, but that doesn't mean you know Amillennialism better than I do. I can study a system of belief in a book without being an adherent or advocate. And there are many, many Amills who know very little about their system of theology as it stacks up against other systems of theology.

It is from *my point of view* that you're replacing something I think is legitimate, which is "Earthly Israel." You validate only "Spiritual Israel" in spiritual matters, and invalidate "Earthly Israel" as a carnal entity to be disqualified. But from my point of view, "Earthly Israel" is, in fact, "Spiritual Israel." And every part of Earthly Israel that is earthy and carnal is to be disqualified and cast off from True Israel, which is Spiritual Israel.

When did I ever say that earthly, national Israel is not a single nation? Never! You are wasting a lot of time arguing with a straw man.

You say that earthly Israel is a single nation, but you claim that "Spiritual Israel," which for you is not "Earthly Israel," consists of many nations. For me, "Spiritual Israel" is, by definition, Earthly Israel in its true spiritual standing. As such, for me it is only a single nation and extends to us by way of a single spiritual mother.

Why do you try to create two separate bodies of God's people when Jesus already long ago brought Jew and Gentile believers together as one body? You have a number of beliefs that are no different than dispensationalists and they are wrong about everything.

I agree with Dispensationalists on the matter of Premillennialism and the restoration of national Israel in the Millennium. How they differentiate Israel from the Church is something I often disagree with them about. I do *not* believe that any semblance of the Law of Moses will be restored to them. I also disagree with Pretribulationism--I'm a Postribulationist.

Enough for now.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The verse does not say they will see Jesus get pierced, does it?

"When they look on Me, whom they peirced."

You claim this prophecy was completed. What was the percentage of Jerusalem that day who were happy that Jesus was dead? What percentage mourned the event?

No one knows, but why does that matter?

It was not that He was pierced any more than they were sorrowful they had pierced Him. How many pierced Jesus that day? How literal does this need to be?

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

What does the word "wound" mean to you? Did Thomas ask this question? Did Abraham see the wounds? How do you think Abraham saw that day and the wounds? Abraham was glad about seeing those wounds. Abraham lived way before Zechariah did.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

You really think no one will notice those wounds at the Second Coming?

Pretty sure it will be Israel at the Second Coming that will mourn. Obviously you don't agree.

Thanks for sharing.